Ibcm Zo BppV2 
for B l^atent 



ilENRY F, N©¥BS. NEW Y®RiC 



T 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 



Chap. Copyright No.. 

Shelf_!lM3 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



Bow Co Apply Tor H Patent 



AN EXPLANATION OF THE 
METHOD OF DRAWING UP 

AND PROSECUTING 

PATENT APPLICATIONS 
WITH EXAMPLES TAKEN 
FROM ACTUAL PRACTICE 






By HENRY F. NOYES, PATENT SOLICITOR 



COPYRIGHT 

HENRY F. NOYES 

1897 



v5^ 



%. 






t. 



CONTENTS. 

Page 

1 Attorney __- __-.-_-'--- 5 

2 What May be Patented -------- 6 

3 Correspondence ----------- 10 

4 Application ----------- n 

Petition - - - - ' - - - - - - - n 

Specification ---------- 11 

Oath ----.-----'-- 14 

Drawing, Model or Specimen ------ 15 

5 Design Patents ----------- jy 

6 Examination - - ---,-_-- jg 

Rejection, References -------- i^ 

Amendment ----- 20 

Allowance ----------- 21 

Forfeited, Abandoned Application - - - _ 21 

7 Appeal _-_.--------- 23 

8 Interference ----------- 24 

9 Re-Issue ------------- 26 

10 Caveat ------------- 27 

11 Disclaimer ---.-----.-- 28 

12 Assignment ----------- 28 

13 Appendix — Forms - - - - - - • - - - - 29 



INDEX TO FORMS. 

1 Petition by Sole Inventor. 

2 Petition by Joint Inventors. 

3 Petition with Power of Attorney. 

4 Petition by an Administrator. 

5 Petition by an Executor. 

6 Petition for a Re-issue. 
Assent of Assignee. 

7 Petition for Letters Patent for a Design. 

8 Petition for a Caveat. 

9 Petition for the Renewal of a Forfeited Application. 

10 Specifications for an Art or Process. 

11 Specification for an Article of Manufacture. 

12 Action by the Patent Office on an Article of ^Manufacture. 

13 Amendment for an Article of ^Manufacture. 

14 Specification for a Design. 

15 Specification for a Composition of Matter. 

16 Specification for a Medical Compound. 

17 Action by the Patent Office — ^Medical Compound. 
t8 Amendment — Medical Compound. 

19 Specification for a Caveat. 

20 Oath by an Inventor. 

21 Oath by an Applicant for Re-issue. ' 

22 Oath to Accompany a New and Enlarged Claim. 

23 Oath as to the Loss of Letters Patent. 

24 Revocation of Power of Attorney. 

25 Disclaimer during Interference. 

26 Preliminary Statement for Domestic Inventor. 

27 Assignment — Entire Interest in Letters Patent before Issue. 

28 Assignment — Entire Interest in Letters Patent. 

29* Assignment — Undivided Interest in Letters Patent. 

30 Assignment — Territorial Interest. 

3 1 License — Shop Right. 

32 License — Not Exclusive — with Royalty. 

33 Complete Proceedings Conducted to Allowance. 



PREFACE. 

The purpose of this book is to make clear the details of the prac- 
tice of the United States Patent Office in patent applications ; to the end 
that many of those who are not able to procure the services of ex- 
perienced attorneys may still be able to protect their ideas. 

The matter presented has been gathered from the "'Rules of 
Practice " of the Patent Office, Decisions of the Comfnissioner of 
Patents and the United States Courts, several works on Patents, and 
from actual practice ; the aim being to make the application of these 
rules, and the method of proceedure, so plain that the services of an 
attorney or agent will not be necessary. 

Little reference has been made to the practice in interference, ap- 
peals, etc., since only a very small percentage of the applications ever 
develope into these disputes, and it would not be possible to cover the 
practice in this little work ; and it would not be advisable for anyone to 
attempt such cases without experienced technical assistance. 

If this publication helps anyone to protect his attempts to promote 
the progress of the useful arts, its appearance will be justified. 

Henry F. Noyes. 
Syndicate Building, 

New York, 1897. 



\. ATTORNEY. 

As there is no limitation prescribed by the Patent Office as 
to who shall act as attorney in the prosecution of a case, the 
papers may be prepared by the inventor, or by any one he shall 
appoint. As the value of the protection which a patent affords 
depends upon the skill and care with which the papers are drawn 
up, they should not be attempted until the inventor thoroughly 
understands the methods and practice. The Office practice 
requires regular forms to be followed in all cases. (See appendix.) 

If an attorney be appornted, he has no power to act until his 
power of attorney shall have been filed, which is customarily done 
with the other papers relating to the case. (See appendix, form 3.) 

The power of attorney may be revoked at any time. (See 
appendix, form 24). For gross misconduct the Commissioner 
may refuse to recognize any person as a patent agent, either gen- 
erally or in each particular case. 



2. WHAT MAY BE PATENTED. 

Section 4886, Revised Statutes of the United States, says : 
" A patent may be obtained by any person who has invented or 
discovered any new and useful art, machine, manufacture or com- 
position of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, 
not known or used by others in this country, and not patented or 
described in any printed publication in this or any foreign country, 
before his invention or discovery thereof, and not in public use or 
on sale in the United States for more than two years prior to this 
application, unless the same is proved to have been abandoned." 

The three essentials to a patent thus are, invention, novelty, 
and utility. 

The interpretation of the word '^ novelty " does not leave 
much chance for argument. The invention is either new or it is 
not. If not the records will tell. The question of novelty is a 
question of fact. Novelty is not, however, precluded by an aban- 
doned application for the same thing, nor an abandoned experi- 
ment, nor by the fact that the parts are old, nor by the fact of a 
prior accidental use or production which is not understood. 

Utility is also very well defined. It is precluded if the device 
be inoperative, or if injurious to the public health, morals or good 
order. 

The word '' discovered " as here used is applicable in con- 
nection with a process or composition of matter, as for instance, a 
medical compound, where the value of the novel ingredients as a 
cure for some particular ill is more in the nature of a discovery. 

The word invented is more applicable to a machine, manu- 
facture, etc., and the rules for testing invention will be given 
further on. 

The word art is used in a more narrow sense than ordinarily, 
Walker's definition being, ''an operation performed by rule to 
produce a result." In this relation it is well to note the same 
writer's definition of the word process, " an operation performed 
by rule to produce a result by a means not solely mechanical." A 
purely mechanical process is not patentable. To be patentable it 
must be a combined use of several laws of nature, as distinguished 
from a principle, which is only one law of nature, and hence not 
patentable. 

A process which involves chemical change is patentable. 
Thus " the manufacturing of fat acids and glycerine from fatty 
bodies, by the action of water at a high temperature and pres- 
sure " would be a patentable process, while " the use of the elec- 



trie current for marking intelligible signs at any distance" is not 
patentable. 

Another process which has been decided in the courts to 
involve invention, is that of reducing fibrous sheets to a soft and 
pliable condition, by first moistening them and then pounding, it 
being held that the moistening involved chemical change. This 
decision plainly lies very near the border line of invention, as it 
would seem that the idea of moistening a substance, when pound- 
ing it to get pliability, would be suggested in the mind of any 
artisan. 

A machine is a combination of mechanical parts adapted to 
receive motion, to produce a desired result. A great majority of 
patents are upon machines, either designed to effect a new result, 
or in additions to or subtractions from old machines to facilitate 
their operation and improve the results obtained thereby. 

A composition of matter may be composed of two or more 
ingredients, mechanically or chemically combined, and must pass 
the usual tests of invention, novelty and utility. A medical com- 
pound, to be patentable, must be more than a mere prescription, 
in other words some one of its ingredients must haye been dis- 
covered to be a remedy for an ill to which it has never before 
been applied. 

A manufacture is whatever is made by the hand of man, as 
distinguished from a machine or composition of matter. 

It is not generally necessary before applying for a patent, 
that it be decided to which of these heads an invention will be 
assigned. 

As to what constitutes the limits of the word *' invented " no 
hard and fast rules can be given. The border line between 
invention and mechanical skill is very indistinct and its interpre- 
tation varies with the ideas of the Examiner or other to whom the 
question may come to be decided. The lowest order of invention 
is something more than the highest order of mechanical skill, and 
the question is not whether a particular mechanic could make the 
improvement, but whether any mechanic might. 

Invention may more often be tested by negative rules or the 
process of elimination. All improvement is not invention. In- 
vention does not lie in superior workmanship, superior materials, 
in greater strength, in fact it is not determined by degree, 
although special cases have arisen under each of these headings, 
in which invention was allowed. For instance, in certain pro- 
cesses, where advantages arose from the treatment of certain sub- 
stances at a higher temperature than had been before attempted, 
limited claims were allowed. 

A change of material or shape does not constitute invention, 
unless it be the means of producing a new effect, or accomplishing 



a new and improved result. Thus the making of solid castings in 
lieu of the construction of detached parts is not invention. 

Aggregation is not invention. As long as each element 
performs some old and well known function, the result is not a 
patentable combination but an aggregation of elements. The 
multiplicity of elements may go on indefinitely without creating a 
patentable combination, unless by their union a new result be 
produced. A pertinent example of an aggregation is the addition 
of the rubber tip to the lead pencil, which was patented, but the 
patent was declared void by the courts. 

To be patentable, the combination of old parts must produce 
a new result, and the result must be dependent upon the collective 
union of the old parts. For example, the affixing of the barbs, 
forming the barbed wire fence, was a patentable combination. 

Duplication or multiplication of parts is' not invention, nor is 
the omission of an element, where accompanied by the omission 
of the function of that element. If, however, there be a new 
method of operation, whereby the same result is obtained, then 
the omission of an element may result in a patentable combination. 

The substitution of an equivalent is not invention, nor is the 
use of an old thing for a new purpose unless there is a change in 
the method of application. As an example of the latter, it has 
been decided that giving the holes in a gas heater a downward 
inclination where in the prior art the holes were horizontal, a 
change which was attended with new and beneficial results, con- 
stituted invention. 

A new means of producing an old result is generally patenta- 
ble. 

Inventions may be either generic or specific. 

There can only be one genus, but there may be several 
species. 

A generic or primary invention is one that performs a 
function never before performed by any earlier invention. It 
involves the creation of a new art. The means and also the pro- 
cess may be patented irrespective of any particular means, but 
one means must be pointed out in the specification. 

A specific or secondary invention is one that performs a 
function previously performed by some earlier invention, but 
which performs that function in a substantially different way. 

The Bell telephone is a primary invention. 

It is important to fully understand this distinction, since a 
primary invention well protected is of the greatest value, and it 
must be recognized as such, to get suitable protection. 

The Patent Office will not answer any inquiries as -to the 
novelty of an alleged invention, nor as to its patentability. As to 
these points the inventor must judge for himself. The Office and 

8 



its records are open to him, and if he is not able to make an 
examination in person, he may either have a search made by 
experts or he may send for copies of all the patents relating to the 
art to which his invention belongs. The Office will supply these 
copies at the rate of 5 cents each, or if ordered by subclasses at 
the rate of 3 cents each, or by classes at the rate of two cents 
each. A letter to the Patent Office as to the number and cost of 
copies of patents in any particular class or sub-class, will obtain 
the desired information. 



3, CORRESPONDENCE, 

All business with the Patent Office must be transacted in 
writing, hence the personal attendance of the applicants is un- 
necessary, although a personal interview with the examiner, to 
explain and make more clear a disputed point will sometimes be 
of advantage, when possible. 

All postage and other charges must be prepaid in full. 

A registered letter or Post Office money order affords a safe 
means of transmitting money to the Office. 

All letters and communications must be addressed the " Com- 
missioner of Patents." 

The assignee of an entire interest in an application is en- 
titled to hold correspondence with the Patent Office to the exclu- 
sion of the inventor. When there has been an assigment of an 
undivided part of the invention all amendments requiring the 
signature of the inventor must have the assent of the assignee. 
(See appendix, form 6.) 

When the attorney shall have filed his power of attorney, 
duly executed correspondence will then be held with him. 

A double correspondence with the inventor and the attorney 
will not be allowed. 

A separate letter should in every case be written in respect 
to each distinct subject of inquiry or application. 

A letter concerning an application should have the name of 
the applicant, title of invention, date of filing of application, and 
serial number of the same at the head of the letter. (See ap- 
pendix, forms 13 and 18.) 

Communications which are w^anting in decorum or courtesy 
will be returned. 



10 



4. APPLICATION* 

A complete application comprises the first fee of $15.00, 
Petition, Specification, Oath, and generally drawings ; a model or 
specimen when required by the Ofifice. The application will not 
be placed on file until all its parts have oeen received at the 
Office, when a receipt will be sent to the applicant, giving the 
filinsf date and serial number. 

It is desirable that all parts should be sent^together, other- 
wise a separate letter must accompany each ; and to this end the 
best mode of transmission is by a pasteboard or other mailing 
tube, which may be registered to ensure its safe delivery. 

The petition, specification and oath should be all attached 
tosrether in the order named. 

When a forfeited application is renewed the original specifi- 
cation, oath and drawing may be used. (See appendix, form 9.) 

Papers not amounting to a complete application- will be re- 
turned upon request. 

PETITION. 

If a power of attorney is given it is usually made a part of 
the petition. (See appendix, form 3, also forms i to 9 incl.) 

SPECIFICATION. 

(See appendix, forms 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 19.) 

The specification is a written description of the invention, 
and of the manner or process of using, constructing or compound- 
ing the same, and is required to be in such full, clear and exact 
terms that any person skilled in the art or science to which it 
belongs may be enabled to make, use, construct or compound the 
same. 

Persons ''skilled in the art " are only those of fair and ordi- 
nary information and not those having great technical knowledge 
of the subject matter of the invention. 

The specification must set forth the precise invention for 
which a patent is desired, explain the principle thereof and the 
best mode in which the applicant has contemplated applying that 
principle. 

In case the invention is an improvement, the specification 
must clearly point out the parts to which the improvement relates, 
and distinguish between what is old and what is new. 

II 



The specification must conclude with a specific or distinct 
claim or claims of the part, improvement or combination which 
the applicant regards as his invention or discovery. 

The order to be followed in framing the specification is : 

1. Preamble stating the name and residence of the applicant, 
and title of the invention, a statement as to whether it has been 
patented in any country, and if so the country in which it has been 
so patented, and the date and number of each patent. 

2. A statement of the general nature and object of the in- 
vention. 

3. A brief description of the different views of the drawings 
(where drawings are admissible.) 

4. A detailed description of the invention, referring to the 
drawing by suitable characters, figures being most desirable, since 
their number is unlimited ; the structure is first described, then 
its mode of operation, and finally what are believed to be the 
novel and patentable features are briefly distinguished from the 
old, as in most cases it is necessary to show more or less old con- 
struction to make plain the operation. 

If the subject is a composition of matter, the description 
should state the component parts thereof, the proportions in which 
they are to be mixed, with clearness and precision. (See appen- 
dix, form 15.) 

A description need not state every use to which an invention 
may be applied, in order to cover such use, since the applicant is 
not required to foresee all the advantages of his invention ; but 
the omission of any thing absolutely material to the utility of the 
invention described, is a fatal defect in the specification, unless 
that omission would be naturally supplied by anyone skilled in 
the art. 

5. The claims. These form the most vital part of the whole 
application. 

6. Signature (in full) of the inventor. 

7. Signature (in full) of two witnesses. 

CLAIMS. 

Each claim is a more or less concise description of the inven- 
tion, and interpreted with reference to the drawings and descrip- 
tion forms the means of identifying the invention. The more 
comprehensive the claim the greater the protection it offers, 
while every limiting word and almost every unnecessary word 
narrows its scope. Each claim is an entirety and must be inter- 
preted as such. The number of claims to be made depends upon 
the complexity of the invention and the number of novel points 
contained therein. Each claim must be designed to protect a 

12 



particular feature of the invention, and in most cases each feature 
must be protected by both broad and particular claims. Each 
claim is made up of elements and the number of elements must 
be pruned to the barest skeleton which is necessary to a working 
combination. A claim that would describe a previously existing 
machine is not allowable, since the inventor would then be claim- 
ing something not of his invention, and hence not his property. 
Thus the scope of the broadest claim in an application is limited 
by the " state of the art," as it is called, or by the inventions on 
record relating to this art. If the inventor understand these 
points he need not fear the bugbear of combination claims, since 
every claim is a combination claim, and only becomes valueless 
when a large or unnecessary number of elements is introduced. 

Functional claims are : First, those covering a function, re- 
sult or effect, not a product or composition of matter. These are 
usually participial in form, as — ''imparting a co-existing move- 
ment to two reciprocating catch pieces in the operation of trip 
cut-off valves " — and are not allowable. Second, those covering 
the function of a machine, as a mechanical process or 'method ; 
these are not allowable. Third, those reciting the functions 
of elements and not their structure, as those defining the 
construction as ''means" or "mechanism," etc.; these are al- 
lowable except when the novelty of the invention lies in the 
"means" or "mechanism" so recited. Fourth, those defining 
sets of mechanism by the results produced. These are allowable 
if the state of the art permits. 

There are two methods of drawing up the claims for an ap- 
plication. One is to use as a foundation claim the broadest claim 
consistent with the writers knowledge of the art, and taking this 
as a basis to make other claims, each a little more limited than 
the previous, until every point is covered, making each claim dis- 
tinct from every other, either by covering a distinct point, or by 
covering the same feature more definitely or more broadly, by the 
addition of or substraction of a detail of construction. As in this 
case the writer proceeds without an accurate knowledge of the 
state of the art, the result is that more or less of the claims are 
rejected on prior inventions, and have to be limited or cancelled. 
A much better practice, and one requiring no more work in the 
end in most cases, is to first obtain from the patent office copies 
of all the patents relating to the subject involved, and after con- 
sulting them to frame the claims so as to avoid the prior patents. 

The main points to be kept in mind in framing claims thus 
are : to avoid claiming any prior invention, to make at least one 
claim so comprehensive that it will cover other possible ways of 
reaching the end that the inventor has in view, and yet to make 
the claim definite. It must be kept in mind that no claim may be 

13 



made which is not iUustrated in the drawing or pointed out in the 
description. Hence, where possible, it is weU to show several 
ways that will eflFect the desired result, as well as the preferred 
way ; and the inventor ought to direct his thoughts to all other 
ways of reaching the end sought, and by showing them he may 
cover possible ways in which another might get around his claims. 
In this reference it must be remembered that two distinct 
inventions can not be claimed in one application. The test as to 
ikhether they are distinct or not is to determine whether the}- may 
be defined by one claim. If tbey can then it is allowable to in- 
clude them in one application, otherwise separate applications 
must be made. Where several ways of effecting a desired result 
are thus shown, tbey are covered by as many broad claims as pos- 



sible, and then th 

and detail claims. 

Where there 

each other and :-.. 



way is made the subject of sp±::ic 



t 5f tr.^' inventions mutually dependent upon 
:r to a single result, then they may be 

^^ ?T,?^tioii^ 

I: r T 7 7 : i in one application be of such a 

r : T : : y : .. :- r^ by a single claim, the in- 

T - r T : T : - T :s claims to one, and the rest 

may be madr : t 5 7 : : : = 7 t ; lications. 

Divisio': :;:::; v t : " - ^e ^^~f— : ::f ::> T^e 

points: ^"hr: r ^ 7 - t t t : : t ld^ 

design and 7 : : : 5 7 : :: 

in which the 7 r 7 :_ :7 _ -7 

art as subjects :: sei r:^:^ :; : : 7 7 7 7:7 :s 

any doubt in ~:.z ;-:: ::^::5 i : 7 : ~ 7 "e 

application :: 3.. :.-.'.. : 7:: :: : 7 ', — :-, 7 :; 7; ;: :: :e 

may do so. 

In case r "".icsticn is rec 11 ired to be divided, a new and 
comrle:e 17 ; ; -'- 5 : : 7 7 for each subject required to be 

sep?- ; 7 7 7 f sr fee, petition, specification, 

oath _ 7 : 7 7 aew application bears to the 

old. e : : _ : 7 : : er by its filing date and number, must be 
state : : 7 r 7 - :: n. 

7 7 s 7 : f :: : ::iist in all cases : e riainly written, prefer- 

:_W 17: 7 7 !feofthe 7 7 a wide marg::: :: 

17 7 7 7:: hsEc? 5 7 L _: np with the -"rs 

7 5 ^77:7: 7 f Ti 7 :: : : ^7 :i::s of the appli- 



c '-^^ccDce. 



OATH. »Scc appendix, fcr.-r 



An additional oath will be re 
filed within a reasonable t!~e ^e: 
oath. 



rlication is not 
It the original 



The oath must be executed or signed before a Notary Public. 

In case an applicant seeks by amendment, to introduce a new 
claim, not originally described in the specification, he will be re- 
quired to file a supplemental oath. (See appendix, form 22.) 
This relates only to the case where a feature not described in the 
specification is made the subject of a claim. And with the amend- 
ment to the claims must be added an amendment to the specifica- 
tion describing the feature defined by the new claim. 

DRAWINGS. 

The applicant will be required to furnish a drawing whenever 
the case permits. The drawings must show every feature of the 
invention which is to be claimed. When the drawing consists of 
an improvement on an old machine, the drawing must exhibit the 
invention itself disconnected from the old machine, and also in 
another view the specific improvement and such parts of the old 
machine as necessarily co-operate with it. 

Pure white paper must be used, 10 x 15 inches in %ize, of a 
thickness corresponding with three-ply bristol board^ calendared 
and smooth. The views must be made by the pen only, in India 
ink, to secure black and solid lines, and the fewest lines consistent 
with clearness. They must not be too fine or crowded. Surface 
shading must be open. The different views must be consecutive- 
ly numbered. The same reference numerals or letters must refer 
to the same parts throughout all the views. One of the shorter 
edges must be the top, and a marginal line i inch from the edge 
must be made all around the sheet. A clear space of an inch and 
a quarter below the top marginal line must be left for the heading 
which will be put in by the Patent Office in uniform style. Each 
sheet must be signed by the inventor, or the name of the inventor 
must be signed upon the drawing by the attorney in fact, at the 
lower right hand corner, with reference to the heading, attested 
by two witnesses at the lower left hand corner. All views and 
signatures must be within the marginal lines, and if the drawing 
be arranged lengthwise of the sheet, the views and reference 
numerals must read when the heading is towards the- right. The 
drawings must not be folded for transmission to the office. No 
new matter can be added to the drawing after filing unless de- 
scribed in the specification. 

Blue-print copies of drawings may be obtained from the 
Patent Office, in three different sixes, the smallest, 5x8 inches at 
five cents a sheet ; when ordering this size two copies of each 
sheet should always be ordered and one copy of each sheet be 
placed on file with the application. Larger sized copies may be 
obtained as follows : 7x11 inches, fifteen cents a sheet, and 
lox 15 inches twenty-five cents a sheet. 

15 



MODEL. 

It is very rare that a niodel is required, so it need be 
furnished only when demanded by the Patent Office ; this would 
amount to an official action, and action on the application would 
be suspended a reasonable time. 

The model should exhibit clearly every feature of the in 
vention which it is desired to claim, and must not be more than 
one foot in length, height or breadth, and must be made of sub- 
stantial material. 

Models made of wood not to be glued up. 

SPECniEXS. 

When the invention is a composition of matter, the applicant 
is sometimes required to furnish specimens of the composition, 
and ingredients sufficient in quantity for the purpose of examination. 



i6 



5. DESIGN PATENTS, 

Revised Statutes of the United States, Section 4929 : *'A 
patent may also be obtained by any person who by his own indus- 
try, genius, efforts and expense, has invented and produced any new 
and original design for a manufacture, bust, statue, alto-relievo, 
or bas-relief ; any new and original design for the printing of 
woolen, silk, cotton and other fabrics ; any new and original im- 
pression, ornament, pattern, print or picture, to be painted, printed, 
cast or otherwise placed on or worked- into any article of manu- 
facture ; or any new, useful and original shape and configuration 
of any article of manufacture, the same not having been known or 
used by others before his invention thereof, nor patented nor de- 
scribed in any printed publication, upon payment of the fees re- 
quired by law. 

Evidently the chief requirement for a design patent is nov- 
elty. 

The novelty of a design is tested, not by any investigation of 
the means employed for its creation, but by ocular comparison of 
the design itself with prior designs in the art ; and in the eyes of 
average observers, not experts. 

A design is not negatived by the fact that all of its features 
can be collected out of some scattered designs. 

A design patent and a mechanical patent may be granted for 
the same invention, since the subiect matter of the claims can not 
be tne same. 

The protection offered by designs patents is very limited, 
since the claim must be limited to the precise configuration shown. 

Design patents are granted for three and a half, seven and 
fourteen years, and the fees are respectively, $10.00, $15.00, and 
$30.00. 

The proceedings in applications for design patents are sub- 
stantially the same as in applications for other patents. The spec- 
ifications must distinctly point out the characteristic features of 
the design and distinguish between what is old and what is new. 
The claims should be distinct and specific. 

The following order of arrangement is to be observed. 

Preamble with name and residence of the applicant, title of 
the design, and name of the article for which the design has been 
invented. 

Detailed description of the design, as it appears in the drawing. 

Claim or claims, Signature of the inventor, and signatures of 
two witnesses. (See appendix, form 14.) 

17 



When the design can be represented by a drawing a model 
will not be required. The drawing must follow the rules formu- 
lated for mechanical drawings. A photograph must be filed when 
required oy the examiner. 

It must be mounted upon bristol board of the size and shape 
required by drawings and similarly signed and witnessed. 



6. EXAMINATION. 

When all parts of the application have been received at the 
Patent Office it is given a serial number and a date. The applica- 
tions as they are received are classified according to the various 
arts and taken up for examination in the regular order of their 
filing in their respective classes. It takes a varying length of 
time for each application to be reached for action but reference to 
the Official Gazette will show how far behind the Office is in any 
particular class. 

The first step in the examination will be to determine whether 
the application is in proper form. If, however, the objections are 
not vital the examiner will proceed with the consideration of the 
application upon its merits and in such case, in his first letter to 
the applicant will state his objections, whether formal or otherwise, 
and until the formal objections are disposed of further action may 
not be taken upon the merits without order of the Commissioner. 

The following applications have precedence over others in 
the order of examination: i. Applications which are deemed of 
peculiar value to some branch of public service. 2. Applications 
for re-issues. 3. Applications covering inventions patented by 
the inventor in foreign countries, and applications interfering 
therewith. 4. Applications which would interfere with another 
application or with an unexpired patent. 5. Cases remanded by 
an appelate tribunal for further action by the Office. 6. Amended 
applications. 

REJECTIONS — REFERENCES. 

The application having been examined, the examiner in his 
first letter to the applicant criticises anything which seems to him 
informal or incomplete in the drawings and specifications, and 
rejects any claims which may be read of any patent on record, 
citing the best references on which his rejection is based and fully 
designating them so as to enable the applicant to look them up, 
giving their dates, numbers, and the names of the patentees, and 
the classes of invention. 

An applicant will be considered to persist in his claim for a 
patent without altering his specification in case he fail to act in 
prosecution of the same for six months after the Office action 
thereon, and thereupon the examiner will make a second examina- 
tion of the case. 

When a claim in an application is rejected on reference to a 
domestic patent which shows or describes but does not claim the 

19 



invention, or on reference to a foreign patent or to a printed 
publication, and the applicant shall make oath to facts showing a 
completion of his invention in this country before the filing of the 
application on which the domestic patent issued, or before the 
foreign patent was issued, or before the date of the printed publi- 
cation, then the patent or publication cited shall not prevent the 
grant of a patent to the applicant. 

The examiner may reject a claim for undue breadth, on the 
ground that while the claim is not met by any prior patent, yet 
owing to the advanced state of the art, the applicant is not entitled 
to a claim of much breadth. (See appendix, forms 12, 17.) 

AMENDMENTS. (See appendix, forms 13, 18.) 

After the applicant has looked up the references on which 
his claims are rejected, his next step depends on whether he 
thinks the references are pertinent or not. If they be, he should 
amend the claims so rejected, either by cancelling them altogether, 
or by adding limiting words, so as to make the claim avoid the 
references cited, being careful not to put in any more limiting 
words than are absolutely necessary. It is also better to accom- 
pany the amended claim or claims with a statement or argument 
in support of them and explaining them, and pointing out their 
patentable novelty. Sometimes a claim rejected may be written 
in another form that will more clearly avoid the references with- 
out narrowing the scope of the claim. 

If the applicant thinks that the claim is just, and not met by 
the reference, he should ask for a re-consideration of the claim, 
giving all his arguments in support of it and pointing out the 
supposed errors of the examiner. If the claim is a second time 
rejected on the same grounds, the only course open to the appli- 
cant is an appeal from the Primary Examiner to the Examiner in 
chief. 

All claims the applicant desires to make must be presented 
before the appeal stage. 

New parties may be admitted to a pending application as 
joint inventors or some of the parties may be dropped, where 
they all consent in writing and where the non-joinder or mis- 
joinder was by mistake and without fraudulent intent. And 
applications may be amended by dividing out distinct though 
related inventions or by uniting two or more applications where 
the inventions are related, but not to put the contents of a later 
application into an earlier one. 

In every amendment the matter to be stricken out or inserted 
must be specified, and the point indicated where the erasure or 
insertion is to be made. 

20 



When an applicant presents a claim for matter originally 
shown or described but not substantially embraced in the state- 
ment of invention or claim originally presented, he will file a 
supplemental oath to the effect that the subject matter of the 
proposed amendment was part of his invention, was invented 
before he filed his original application, was not known or used 
before his invention, was not in public use or on sale in this 
country for more than two years prior to the date of his applica- 
tion, and has not been abandoned. (See appendix, form 22.) 

During the pendency of an interference, amendments to an 
application will not be entered, except to withdraw subject matter 
not adjudged to interfere, or to avoid interference, or to disclaim, 
or to claim a patentable invention claimed by another party and 
shown and described by, but not claimed by the party who amends. 

After final rejection amendments will not be entered, except 

to conform to the requirements of the examiner, or to cancel 

claims, or to present the twice rejected claims and^ the related 

parts of the specifications and drawings in better form for consid- 

-eration on appeal. 

After an application has been formally allowed amendments 
will not be entered except by leave and for a good cause. 

If it should become advisable to amend an allowed application 
and the Office should refuse to entertain the amendment, the 
application may be forfeited and a new application filed in its 
place, containing the desired amendment. 

The applicant must prosecute his application within two 
years after the date of the last official action thereon. 



ALLOWANCE. 

If upon examination it is decided that the applicant is justly 
entitled to a patent, a notice of allowance will be sent him, calling 
for the payment of the final fee of $20.00 within six months after 
the date of the notice, and upon receipt of the final fee within 
this time, the patent will be issued. 



FORFEITED APPLICATION. 

In case the final fee is not paid within the prescribed time, 
the application becomes forfeited, and in order to renew it, a new 
first fee of $15.00 is required, but the original specification, oath 
and drawing may be used. (See appendix, form 9.) 



21 



ABANDONED APPLICATION. 

Any application, including an allowed one, which is not acted 
upon within two years after the last action by the Office, becomes 
abandoned, and can only be revived in exceptional cases ; it must 
be shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that such delay 
was unavoidable. 

When an abandoned application is revived a new first fee, 
petition, specification, oath and drawing will be required. 



7. APPEAL. 

Every applicant for a patent, any of whose claims have been 
twice rejected upon the same ground, may upon the payment of a 
fee of $10.00 appeal from the decision of the primary examiner to 
the examiner-in-chief. The appeal must set forth in writing the 
points of the decision upon which it is taken, and must be signed 
by the applicant or his attorney. 

All preliminary and intermediate questions must be settled 
upon before the case can be appealed. 

The appellant must before the day of hearing file a brief of 
the arguments and authorities upon which he relies to maintain 
his appeal. If he desires to be heard orally he may so indicate 
when he files his appeal and a day of hearing will be fixed and due 
notice given him. In appealable cases in which no limit of appeal 
i's fixed no appeal will be entertained unless within six months 
after the last action which puts the case m condition for appeal, 
unless it be shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioner t-hat 
such delay was unavoidable. 

From an adverse decision of the examiner-in-chief an appeal 
may be taken to the Commissioner in person, upon payment of 
the fee of $20.00. 



23 



8. INTERFERENCES, 

An interference is a proceeding instituted for determining 
the question of priority of invention between two parties claiming 
substantially the same invention. The fact that one of the parties 
has already obtained a patent will not prevent an interference, 
provided the other party can file an affidavit that he made the 
invention before the patentee's application was filed. Before the 
interference is declared the inventions of each party to the inter- 
ference must be decided to be patentable. When an applicant 
fails to place his application in condition for interference within 
thirty days, the interference will nevertheless proceed. 

The primary examiner will clearly define the issue, designat- 
ing the claims involved in each application, and will send notices 
of the interference to each party, naming also the other parties to 
the interference ; the seniority of the applicants is determined by 
the filing dates of their respective applications, and each party 
will be required to file on or before a specified date a preliminary 
statement of the following facts : (See appendix, form 26.) 

1. The date of the original conception of the invention at 
issue ; 

2. The date upon which the first drawing was made ; 

3. The date upon which a model of the invention was made ; 

4. The date upon which the invention was first disclosed to 
others ; 

5. The date of reduction' to practice of the invention ; 

6. A statement of the extent of use of the invention. 

If a drawing has not been made, or if the invention has not 
been disclosed to others, or used to any extent, or reduced to 
practice, the statement must so state. 

When the invention was made abroad the statement must 
set forth : 

1. That the applicant made the invention at issue. 

2. When and where patented abroad, if so patented. 

3. When and where described in a printed publication if so 
described. 

4. When introduced in this country and where. 

The statement must be sealed up in a separate envelope be- 
fore filing, with the name of the party filing it, the subject of the 
invention and title of the case upon the envelope, which must be 
enclosed in another envelope for transmission to the Office. 

'■ These envelopes will not be opened until statements from all 
parties to the case have been received or until the date of filing 

24 



has expired. And after the approval of the statements submitted, 
and the date of filing has expired, the parties will be permitted to 
obtain copies of their opponents cases, at least of as much as per- 
tains to the subject of the interference. If a party fail to file a 
preliminary statement his case must be restricted to his date of 
filing. 

When only a part of an application is involved in an inter- 
ference, if separable, the applicant may file certified copies of that 
part of the drawings, specifications and claims which relate to the 
interference and such copies may be used in the proceeding and 
the remainder of the application withheld from inspection. 

There are occasions where it is desirable to avoid an inter- 
ference by filing a disclaimer, as when the claims involved are of 
a subordinate nature and the applicant is doubtful of the outcome 
of the proceedings. 

In such case the disclaimer must be filed before the date of 
filing the preliminary statement, and must disclaim the invention 
of the particular matter at issue, and cancel the claims involved. 
i(See appendix, form 25.) 

It must be kept in mind that an interference is based on 
conflicting claims when the claims in whole or in part cover the 
same invention. 

Only a small per centage of the whole number of applications 
for patents meet interference suits, probably not one in twenty- 
five. It would not be advisable for the inventor to conduct an 
interference himself beyond the point of filing his preliminary 
statement. The cases are very often decided at this point. 



25 



9. RE-ISSUE. 

(See appendix, form 21.) 

An application for re-issue must be accompanied by the origi- 
nal patent, which will be returned if the re-issue is not granted. 

A re-issue will be granted when a patent is inoperative or 
invalid by reason of an insufficient or defective specification, or 
by the patentee claiming as his invention more than he had a right 
to claim, when these errors occurred through no fraudulent or 
deceptive intent on the part of the patentee. 

A claim erased from the original application, through a mis- 
take of the solicitor, may be reinstated in the re-issue. 

A claim may be enlarged in a re-issue only in case of a real 
mistake inadvertently committed. 

EXTENSION. 
Patents will not be extended except by act of Congress. 



W. CAVEATS. 

It is generally admitted that the Caveat does not offer the 
inventor sufficient benefit to ever reconipense him for the possible 
weakening of his case which may follow its filing. It conveys no 
rights and is always an invitation for an interference suit. It 
simply is a notice to the Patent Office that the inventor is ex- 
perimenting with an invention and wants more time to complete 
it, in other words it puts the inventor on record as having an 
invention which is not complete at that time, and if some one 
happens to apply for a patent on the same thing, the caveator 
finds himself in a weak position, since the act of applying for a 
patent is prima facie evidence that the invention of the applicant 
is completed. Moreover, the caveat has no claim upon anything 
already in the Office, merely being a claim upon the Office to in- 
form the caveator of anything filed after his caveat. Its life is 
one year and may be renewed. In case of another application 
being filed for the same thing, the caveator is notified and allowed 
only three months to complete his invention and make application 
for a patent, and if he so completes his invention the first result 
is an interference suit with the application called to his notice, 
which will have been held three months to await his action. 

If the caveator simply wishes to go on record, it is much 
better to make or get made a sketch or drawing of the application 
of his idea and have it witnessed by some reputable person and 
preserve it, and then push his invention to completion as fast as 
possible. 

The fee for a caveat is $10.00. It may be renewed at the 
end of a year by the payment of another fee. 

The caveat comprises an oath, specification and drawing 
where the case admits of the latter ; the drawing may be made on 
tracing cloth of a size convenient to be folded to the size required 
for drawings. 

The same particularity of description is n,ot required of a 
caveat as for a patent application, but it must set forth the dis- 
tinguishing characteristics of the invention. 



27 



n. DISCLAIMER. 

Disclaimers are of two* descriptions ; one form is that where 
a patentee finds his claims cover more than he had a right to 
claim as new or as his invention ; he may in this case make dis- 
claimer of the part not his own on payment of the fee of ten dollars ; 
the other form is that where an applicant has filed claims to which 
he does not choose to claim title ; for instance to avoid the contin- 
uance of an interference suit, a disclaimer may be filed. Such 
disclaimers do not require a fee. (See appendix, form 25). 



12. ASSIGXMEXT. 
See :-ppendix, forms 2"^ to 32 ir.c-usive.) 

Ar. s :^: :! must be recorded in \:.- 7 : \: _ ~:t within 
:hrre :::;:.; :: rr its date, or it will be:::; r ^ :_3.inst a 

subsequent : ^t I: : ^ s red to look up the title of a 
patent or s: : i-i.vjn. ilic vl/mvie will furnish an abstract of title 
for a small i-- v'rh may be learned by inquir}. 



28 



13. APPENDIX OF FORMS* 

PETITIONS. 

I. By A Sole Inventor. 

To the Commissioner of Patents : 

Your petitioner, James B. Smith, a citizen of the U7iited 
States, residing at New York, in the county of New York, and 
State of Nczv York, (or subject, etc ,) prays that letters patent be 
granted to him for the improvement in sewing machines set forth 
in the annexed specification. 

James B. Smith. 



2. By Joint Invei^tors. 

To the Commissioner of Patents : 

Your petitioners, yirrw^j' B. Smith ?ind John C. Brown, citizens 
of tJie United States, residing respectively at Nezv York, in the 
County of New York, and State of New York, and at Brooklyn, in 
the County of Kings, and State of New York, (or subjects, etc.,) 
pray that letters patent maybe granted to them, as joint inventors, 
for the improvement in washing machines set forth in the annexed 
specification. 

James B. Smith, 
JoJin C. Broivn. 

3. Petition with Power of Attorney. 

To the Commissioner of Patents : 

Your petitioner, y<r7;«^j-^. Smith, a citizen of the United States, 
residing at New York, in the County of New York, and State of 
New York, (or subject, etc. ) prays that letters patent may be 
granted to him for the improvement in bicycles set forth in the 
annexed specification ; and he hereby appoints Charles H. Wilson, 
of the city of Nezv York, and State of Nezv York, Ids attorney, 
with full power of substitution and revocation, to prosecute this 
application, to make alterations and amendments therein, to 
receive the patent, and to transact all business in the Patent 
Office connected therewith. 

James B. Smith, 

29 



4- By an Administrator. 

To the Commissioner of Patents : 

Your petitioner, /^r/z/^w /x Smith, a citizen of the United States, 
residing at Xei^^ York, in the County of Nezu York, and State of 
New York, (or subject, etc.,) administrator of the estate oijohfi C. 
Brozufi, late a citizen of Brooklyn, deceased (as by reference to the 
duly certified copy of letters of administration, hereto annexed, 
will more fully appear,) prays that letters patent may be granted 
to him for the invention of the said John C. Brown, (improvement 
in type-iuriters) set forth in the annexed specification. 

James B. Smith, Administrator, etc. 

5. By an Executor. 

To the Commissioner of Patents : 

Your petitioner, y(7;;/r.s- B. Smith, a citizen of the United States, 
residing at New York, in the County of New York, and State of 
Nezv York, (or subject, etc.,) executor of the last will and testa- 
ment of JoJin C. Brown, late a citizen of Brooklyn, deceased (as 
by reference to the duly certified copy of letters testamentary, 
hereto annexed, will more fully appear), prays that letters patent 
may be granted to him for the invention of the s2i\(\John C. Brown, 
(improvement in steam e7igines) set forth in the annexed specifi- 
cation. James B. Smith. 

6. For a Re-issue. (By the Inventor.) 

To the Commissioner of Patents : 

Your petitioner, _/<'?;;/r.s' B. Smith, a citizen of the United States, 
residing at Neiv York, in the County of Neiu York, and State of 
Neiv York, (or subject, etc.,) prays that Jie may be allowed to sur- 
render the letters patent for an improvement in pile-di'ivcrs, 
granted to him May 16, l8g6, whereof he is now sole owner (or 
whereof Jo/m C. Brown, on whose behalf and with whose assent 
this application is made, is now sole owner, by assignment), and 
that letters patent may be re-issued to ///;;/ (or to the said JoJin C. 
Brown) for the same invention, upon the annexed amended specifi- 
cation. With this petition is filed an abstract of title, duly certi- 
fied as required in such cases. James B. Smith. 

Assent of Assignee to Re-issue. 

The undersigned, assignee of the entire (or of an undivided) 
interest in the above mentioned letters patent, hereby assents to 
the accompanying application. John C. Brown. 

30 



7. For Letters Patent for a Design. 

To the Commissioner of Patents : 

Your petitioner, /ajnes B. Smith, a citizen of the United States, 
residing at New York, in the County of Neiv York, and State of 
Nezv York, (or subject, etc.), prays that letters patent may be 
granted to him for the term of three and one-half years (or seven 
years, or fourteen years) for the new and original design for rngs 
set forth in the annexed specification. 

James B. Smith. 

8. Caveat. 

The petition oi James B. Smith, a citizen of the United States, 
residing at A^eiv York, in the County of New York, and State of 
Nezv York, (or subject, etc., see Caveats), represents: 

That Jie has made certain improvements in cotton-gins, and 
that he is now engaged in making experiments for the purpose of 
perfecting the same, preparatory to applying for letters patent 
therefor. He therefore prays that the subjoined description of 
his invention may be filed as a caveat in the confidential archives 
of the Patent Office. 

James B. Smith. 

9. For the Renewal of a Forfeited Application. 

To the Commissioner of Patents : 

Your petitioner, James B. Smith, a citizen of tJie United States, 
residing at New York, in the County of New York, and State of 
New York, (or subject, etc.), represents that on Jime g, l8g6, he 
filed an application for letters patent for an improvement in print- 
ing presses, serial number 534^53^ which application was allowed 
August 75, l8g6, but that he failed to make payment of the final 
fee within the time allowed by law. 

He now makes renewed application for letters patent for said 
invention and prays that the original specification, oath, drawings 
and model may be used as a part of this application. 

James B. Smith. 

SPECIFICATIONS. 

ID. For an Art or Process. 

To all whom it may concern : 

Be it known that I, James B. Smith, a citizen of the United 
States, residing at New York, in the County of New York, and 

31 



State of Xew York (or subject, etc.), have invented certain new 
and useful improvements iji piirifyijig atid increasing t)ie illuminat- 
ing poiver of gas zi'ithout appreciable loss of b 21 Ik (for which I have 
received letters in England, No. 1,897, dated August 7, 1896), and 
I do hereby declare that the following is a full, clear and exact 
description of the invention, which will enable others skilled in 
the art to which it appertains to use the same. 

Heretofore gas has been purified by passing it through animal 
charcoal ; but when this is used alone, after a short time it loses 
its power of absorbing impurities, and must then be washed with 
steam or water, or have atmospheric air blown through it, or be 
revivified by heat. Used alone, animal charcoal also reduces the 
candle-power of the gas passed through it and diminishes its 
bulk. 

The object of my invention is to thoroughly purify illuminat- 
ing gas, to make the operation continuous, and to purify the gas 
without detracting from its illuminating power, and without caus- 
ing any appreciable diminution in bulk ; and to this end my 
invention consists in increasing the power of animal charcoal to 
eliminate from illuminating gas those substances which are con- 
sidered impurities, in charging the charcoal with a substance 
which will prevent it from depriving the gas of illuminants, and 
in passing the gas to be purified with atmospheric air through the 
animal charcoal. 

To carr}' my invention into effect, I moisten the charcoal 
(which may be either nev\- or spent; with coal-tar,. or with coal-tar 
and water, or in some cases with water only, and then charge this 
mass into one or more vessels, which then constitutes the puri- 
fier. I may put the mass into the vessels while still wet, or, un- 
less water alone is used, after it has dried. Through these vessels 
the gas is to pass ; but before it is admitted I introduce into it at 
the retorts, or at the ^tand-pipe or mains beyond, in order to -in- 
sure a thorough mixture, a small quantity of atmospheric air — 
say from eight-tenths to two and a half per cent, of the bulk of 
the gas to be purified. The quantity of air will depend directly 
upon the impurities of the gas. Any suitable mixmg device for 
thoroughly mixing .the admitted air with the gas may be located 
at any point in the mains between the retorts and the bone-black 
purifiers, or even at the point of admission to the purifier. For 
water-gas the charcoal wet with water alone will suffice, air being 
introduced into the gas. 

The ox}-gen of the air partly unites with the sulphur to form 
soluble salts, and the rest combines totally with the hydrogen of 
the sulphureted and other hydrogen sulphur compounds to form 
water, and part of the sulphur of the sulphureted hydrogen and 
other sulphur compounds is precipitated in a free state in the 

32 



charcoal, while the nitrogen partly goes to form, with part of the 
remaining hydrogen, ammonia bases. No free oxygen passes off 
with the purified gas, while if any nitrogen goes over, the quantity 
is so small that it is not detrimental. 

By the application of air in this manner the process is ren- 
dered continuous, as the charcoal is kept constantly active for a 
great length of time. 

When the absorbing power of the charcoal finally becomes 
exhausted, it may either be sold for the valuable ammoniacal salts 
it contains, or it may be revivified, or be washed and freed from 
sulphur by a suitable sulphur solvent for re-use. 

By charging the bone-black with coal-tar 1 prevent it from 
taking out of the gas any olefiant gas or other heavy hydrocarbons 
serving as illuminants. 

I may treat the black, either before or after putting it into 
vessels, as may be most convenient or suitable, with any substance 
correlative to the illuminants of the gas ; that is, with any sub- 
stance which will impregnate the black in such a manner that it 
will not take up such illuminants. I, have particularly described 
coal-tar because that is most readily at hand ; but its hydrocarbon 
distillates or the benzole series will answer. 

In the case of coal-gas, not only is the sulphureted hydrogen 
with which it is contammated taken up, as just described, but the 
illuminating power of the gas, which is somewhat reduced if passed 
through dry animal charcoal or bone black, is not decreased when 
air is used and the animal charcoal or bone-black is wet with tar, 
but is actually improved, inasmuch as it gives a whiter flame, of 
the same candle-power as the gas not passed through aninal char- 
coal or bone-black at all. 

By the old method, when purification was effected by the use 
of lime, the sulphureted hydrogen and carbonic acid were absorbed 
by the lime, and the result was, of course, a loss of the original 
bulk of the gas. Now, by my process the sulphur and hydrogen 
are separated, the sulphur remaining in the charcoal and the hydro- 
gen passing through with the gas, while the carbonic acid passes 
through entire ; and although it passes through unchanged, it is 
sufficiently carbureted not to detract from the illuminating power 
of the gas. I thus have practically the same bulk of gas after 
purification as before this operation, and loss is prevented without 
detriment to the consumer. 

A striking advantage of my process is, that it unites the 
scrubbing and purifying operations, for the gas may be passed 
directly from the condenser into my purifiers. 

To eliminate sulphureted hydrogen, I may also mix with the 
charcoal a substance which will of itself decompose sulphureted 
hydrogen contained in gas — such as oxide of iron, tin, manganese 
ore, etc. 

33 



WTien the ^as issues from my ruri-.ers i: is er.virr free 
from ammoniacai ari sui" hur compounds, ar.i is re:r/ iorous. 

When the char;;?-i :s :t":oved from thz .:r rr also in- 

odorous, and is in no sense offensive and disr -: :^ as-lime. 

Having fully described my invention, wiia: I :.:.::::. _:.i desire 
to secure :; ietters patent, is — 

1. In the r urif::a:i:n of illuminating gas by means of animal 
charcoal, the ^rress :: preventing absorption of illuminants of 
:he ^as : : hr ; ur; :i :h consists in supplpng the charcoal 
wirh a su : :ir : rrrii' r : r::h illuminants, as described. 

2 . T i- 1 : T s 5 : : : : r _ illuminating gas, which consists 
i" r.ixi r : t ir.r ::i. uir ur :i :i. en passing it through animal 
; .uriii r._:r^ -^:zi v :i. ::ui-:-r. aii substantially as described, 

James B. Smith. 
>V ilQcsscs ; 

diaries Johnson, 
William G. Antiiony. 



34 



3 "T 



/c^ 



la 




••Tl 



V^ 






^ 




r/G / 



^/^ ^. 



i9 



^'Q 



-.9 




:4 



W////////////////////////////,^ 

r/G 4f 



/ 



/« 



//acT.j yff-'''2 



A~ ^ <$^, 






M¥e^ro/^ 



i/o/i/t C. Uroirn, 



/fitMf. 



II. Article of Manufacture. 

To all whom it may concern : . 

Be it known that I, James B. Sinit/i, a citizen of the United 
States, residing at Nezv York, in the County of New York, and 
State of New York, (or subject, etc.,) have invented certain new 
and useful improvements in soap frames of which the following is 
a full and complete specification. 

^ The object of my improvement is to provide a frame or vat, 
into which soap may be poured while in a liquid state, to hold it 
during the process of cooling and hardening, and a frame which 
can be readily taken apart to remove the soap. 

Frames to be adapted to this purpose have to have sufficient 
capacity to hold about looo or 1500 pounds of soap, and when 
this cools it makes a very unwieldy' block, hence it is necessary 
that the sides and ends of the frame should be capable of being 
taken down to remove the block. 

The frames heretofore used for this purpose have been chiefly 
of wood and divided into five separate parts, two sides, two ends, 
and the bottom. To set up and take down a frame of this descrip- 
tion is hence a task of some difficulty, especially as the soap always 
sticks to the sides and makes it difficult to remove them without 
crumbling the block. 

In the drawings Figure i is a side elevation of my device. 
Figure 2 is an end elevation of the same. Figure 3 is a partial 
plan showing one end. Figure 4 is a section of the base. Figure 

5 is a detail of the device for clamping the ends to the base. Figure 

6 is a plan of one side with the end folded up. 

Referring to the drawings, my improvement has a base 
portion which consists of a main block i. Above this is fastened 
another block 2 of smaller dimensions than the fi.rst. The edges 
of this upper block are bevelled off as shown in Fig. 4, the object 
of which will be referred to later on. Fastened to the perimeter 
of the block i, are the strips 3, fitted to the angle irons 4; the 
inner vertical face of the angle iron forms with the bevelled edge 
of the block 2, a groove 5, extending around the base parallel to 
its sides or ends as the case may be. For each side of the soap 
frame I provide a plate 19, strenthened by a number of angle 
irons 6. One end plate 7 is hinged to one end of each side plate. 
Riveted on the inner side, to each end of each side plate 19, are 
vertical angle irons 8, against which the end plate 7 rests when 
the frame is set up. As a means of clamping the end plate to 

37 



the base, 1 provide an angle iron 9 which is vertically riveted to 
the end plate, one flange of this angle projecting perpendicularly 
to the end plate. A pin or bolt ic is fastened to this flange and 
on this bolt is fitted another bolt i i, having a long eye 12, through 
which the bolt 10 passes. The base is provided with a slot 13 in 
which the bolt i i is placed and the nut 14 serves to clamp the 
end firmly to the base. The object of the eye 12 will be referred 
to further on. To clamp the sides together, I provide the eye 
bolts 15, fastened to one side, and having other eye bolts 16 
adapted to be fitted into a slot 17 on the opposite side, and having 
a hand nut 18 to clamp the whole structure together. 

In the operation of the frame, after the sides and ends have 
been placed in their respective grooves, and the end and base bolts 
tightened up, the soap in a liquid state is poured into the interior. 
Its weight serves to push the end plates against the angles on the 
ends of the sides, and at the base to push the ends and side against 
the flat part of their corresponding grooves, this making in each 
case a tight joint. After the soap has cooled sufflciently and be- 
come hard, the nuts are loosened and the end bolts released, the 
ends then are sprung outwardly enough to free them from the 
block of soap, and then the sides are tipped outward from the top. 
The object of the shape of the grooves in which the sides rest will 
now be apparent, since the bevel of the inner face of the groove 
allows the bottom of the side to swing in slightly as its top is 
pushed outward, thus avoiding the necessity of lifting the sides 
out of the groove and crumbling the soap. After the sides have 
been removed and the ends folded up, the bolt 1 1 is turned on the 
bolt 10 and allowed to drop down the full length of the slot 12 
until it is in the position as shown in Fig. 5, when it lays up 
against the end plate and can not fall outward until it is again 
lifted up to the end of the slot. 

Having described my invention I claim : 

1. In a soap frame, the combination of a base portion, two 
side plates each provided with an angle iron at each end, and an 
end plate hinged to one end of each side plate and adapted to 
swing in towards said side plate, and end angle irons adapted to 
support said end plates, as and for the purpose set forth. 

2. In a soap frame the combination of a base portion pro- 
vided with a groove parallel to and just within its perimeter, two 
side plates each provided with an angle iron at each end, an end 
plate hinged to one end of each side plate and adapted to be sup- 
ported by one of said end angle irons, said end and side plate 
adapted to be received in said groove, eyebolts adapted to bind 
said side plates together, and bolts adapted to bind said end plates 
to said base, as and for the purpose set forth. 



38 



3- In a soap frame, the combination of a base portion, two 
side plates each provided with an angle iron at each end, an end 
plate hinged to one end of each side plate and provided with a 
projecting flange, a bolt fastened to said flange by means of a pin 
working in a slot in one end of said bolt, as and for the purpose 
set forth. 

James B. Smith. 
Witnesses : 

Charles Johnson, 

William G. Anthony. 



12. Action by the Patent Office. 

Department of the Interior, 

United States Patent Office, 

Washington, D. C, May lo, 1896. 
James B. Smith, care of John C. Brown, 

New York, N. Y. 
Please find below a communication from the Examiner in 
charge of your application, No. 584,324. Soap Frames. Filed 
Mar. 10, 1896. 

John S. Seymour, 

Commissioner of Patents. 
Above case has been considered. 

Claim I is rejected on patent to Babbitt, 342,320, Sep. 21, 
1886 (Soap Frames). 

Claim 2 is rejected on Rosenblatt, 349,558, May 25, 1886 
(same class). 

The changes called for by applicants' claims over the above 
patents are thought to amount to mere mechanical skill. 



13. Amendment. 

James B. Smith, 

Soap Frame, 

Filed Mar. 10, 1896. 

Serial No. 584,324. 

New York, N. Y., May 15, 1896. 
Commissioner of Patents, 

Washington, D. C. 

Dear Sir : — In the matter of the above mentioned application, 
and with reference to Office letter of the loth inst., in order to 
more particularly point out the patentable distinction of this appli- 
cation from the cases cited against it, viz.: Babbitt, 342,320, Sep. 

. 39 



2 1, 1 886, and Rosenblatt, 349,558, May 25, 1886, I desire to 
amend as follows : 

By striking out claim i and substituting the following claim i. 
I. In a soap frame, the combination of a base portion, two 
side plates each provided with a vertical flange at each end, end 
plates flexibly joined to said side plates, said flexible joints being 
within said end flanged whereby said end flanges are adapted to 
support said end plates when the frame is set up in its normal 
position, as and for the purpose set forth. 

I would respectfully ask for a reconsideration of claim 2 in 
view of the following facts : 

The main and distinctive feature of this invention is the 
hinged or flexible connection of the sides to the ends. I am aware 
that the simple addition of such a connection to the structures 
cited against this application would not ordinarily constitute inven- 
tion. But in this case a new result has been aimed at and achieved, 
which it would seem is worthy of protection. In the operation of 
these frames the cost for the labor of setting them up to receive 
the liquid soap, and of taking them down after the soap has cooled, 
in order to remove the hardened block, is a matter which consti- 
tutes no small per centage of the cost of production. In the- 
common method of production the frame consists of five parts, a 
base, two sides and two ends. The difficulty one person would have 
in setting one of these frames up alone \sill be readily apparent. In 
order to avoid this difficulty the applicant invented a frame in 
which there are only three parts, a base and two sides, the ends 
of which are flanged to form the ends of the frame, and has already 
applied for a patent on this construction. At first this construc- 
tion seemed to meet all requisites, but it was afterwards found 
that where large quantities of these frames were in use they would 
take up too much room when not set up. It was therefore to 
meet this objection that the applicant devised this construction, 
which when not in use takes up no more room than where the 
sides and ends are entirely disconnected, and yet which can be 
set up in half the time. And it is not merely the addition of the 
flexible joint which is the subject of this application but with that 
joint a means must be provided of making it tight. This the 
applicant has ingenuously effected by providing a flange outside of 
the joint so that the pressure of the soap while in a liquid state will 
spring the end plates against these flanges and thus make the joint. 
It is difficult to fully set forth the advantages of this inven- 
tion on paper. One ought to have worked at setting up a few 
frames of the old style and then try one of the applicant's inven- 
tion to fully appreciate the importance it has. 
Respectfully submitted, 

John C. Brown, 

Attorney for Applicant. 
40 




r/Q. /. 





/va^ 



o 


/ '^^^ \ 


1 1 1 


• 1 



r/G. J. 



/y/ T/vrsse^s 






iJames C. /5royy/y 



42 



14- For a Design. 

To all whom it may concern : 

Be it known that I, James B. Smith, a citizen of the United 
States, residing at A^ezv York, m the County of New York, and 
State of New York, (or subject, etc.,) have invented and produced 
a new and original design for fork.cioivnsfor bicycles, of which the 
following is a complete and full specification, reference oeing had 
to the accompanying drawings in which • 

Figure i is a front elevation of a fork crown embodying my 
design. Figure 2 is a sectional elevation of the same, and Figure 
3 is a plan view of the same. 

Referring to the drawings, the leading feature of my design 
consists in the novel shape which I give to the crown, it being in 
cross section an approximate hexagon as shown in Figure 2, the 
angles of the hexagon gradually disappearing near the middle por- 
tion of the crown where it is enlarged. 

Having described my invention I claim : 

The design for a fork crown for bicycles herein shown and 
described. 

James B. Smith. 
Witnesses : 

CJiarles Johnson, 

William G. Anthony. 

15. For a Composition of Matter. 

To all whom it may concern : 

Be it known that I, James B. Smith, a citizen of the United 
States, residing at New Yo7'k, in the County of Nezv York, and 
State of A^ew York, (or subject, etc.,) have invented a new and 
useful composition of matter to be used for the removal of hair and 
gfease frovi hides preparatory to tanni^ig, of which the following is 
a full and complete specification. 

My composition consists of the following ingredients, com- 
bined in the proportions stated, viz.: 

Pure water 500 gallons, unslaked lime 32 gallons, soda ash 
100 pounds, saltpetre 20 pounds, and flowers of sulphur 10 pounds. 

These ingredients are to be thoroughly mingled by agitation. 

In using the above named composition the hides should first 
be freed from all salt and impurities, by soaking green hides one 
day and dry hides eight days, and placing the hides so cleaned in 
the said solution and allowing them to remain in it for forty-eight 
hours. The hides are then to be removed from the solution and 
unhaired in the usual way. 

43 



By the use of this composition the hair is speedily and thor- 
oughly loosened, and the hides, while retaining all that portion of 
the substance which can be converted into leather, are at the 
same time thoroughly cleaned from grease and other substances 
which would prevent them from being tanned quickly. 

I claim : 

The herein described composition of matter to be used for 
depilating hides and preparing them for being tanned, consisting 
of water, unslaked lime, soda ash, saltpetre, and flowers of sulphur 
in the proportions specified. 

James B. SmitJi. 
Witnesses : 

diaries Johnson, 

William G. Anthony. 



1 6. For a Medical Compound. 

To all whom it may concern : 

Be it known that 1, James C. Smith, a citizen of the United 
States, residing at JVezu York, in the county of Nezv York and 
State of Nezu York (or subject, etc.), have invented and discov- 
ered a new and useful medical compound, of which the following 
is a full and complete specification. 

My discovery has for its object to provide a new and efficient 
cure for the dropsy and kindred kidney troubles, and consists of 
the following ingredients : Apocynum (Indian Hemp), Gaulthe- 
ria Procurabens (Wintergreen), and Polytrichum Communis, 
(Golden Moss) ; the latter is a moss which is found upon rocks 
in shaded places in the mountains of Virginia, and forms the novel 
and most efficient ingredient of the compound. 

In preparing the compound I first take equal parts of In- 
dian Hemp and Golden Moss, about two ounces of each, and 
steep in about three quarts of water for six hours, reducing the 
whole volume to about two quarts or to about two-thirds of the 
orisrinal volume. I then add one-half dram of winterg-reen to 
each quart of the compound. Wintergreen being an astringent, 
is used to counteract the too severe laxative effect which the 
two other ingredients would otherwise have upon the bowels and 
kidneys. 

The proper dose is a wine glass full taken two or three times 
a day. The compound when made in the mianner hereinbefore 
described forms a positive and never failing cure for the dropsy 
and kindred troubles. 

Having described my invention I claim : 

A medical compound composed of an aqueous solution of 

44 



Apocynum, Gaultheria Procumbens and Polytrichiim Communis, 
in the proportions herein set forth. James B. Smith. 

Witnesses : 

CJiarles Johnson, 

William G. Anthony. 

17. Action by the Patent Office. 

United States Patent Office. 

Washington, D. C, Oct. 10, 1895. 
James C. Smith 

New York, N. Y. 
Please find below a communication from the Examiner in 
charge of your application, Medical Compound, filed August 16, 
1895, Serial No. 565,789. 

John S. Seymour, 

Commissioner of Patents. 
It is admitted by the examiner that a compound consisting 
of the Apocynum and Wintergreen would form a useful compound 
for the treatment of dropsy and allied diseases. Whether the 
addition thereto of Polytrichum Communis would add to or detract 
from the curable properties of the first named diuretic is question- 
able. The use of the first two ingredients of this compound does 
not exceed the expected skill of the medical profession, and is not 
a discovery within the meaning of the law. It amounts simply to 
a prescription and prescriptions are not patentable. It is obvious 
that there are many herbs not on record as useful for the treat- 
ment of any disease, which if added to the compound first named, 
would not interfere with its diuretic action, but still, while such 
addition would give numerical novelty, it would not make up a 
patentable combination. 

Further action on this case is therefore suspended to afford 
the applicant time to demonstrate the value of his alleged new 
remedy, by experiment, apart from and not in connection with 
the first two named ingredients. 

18. P'oR AN Amendment. 

James B. Smith, 
Medical Compound, 
Filed Aug. 16, 1895. 
Serial No. 565. 789. 

New York, N. Y., Oct. 15, 1895. 
Commissioner of Patents, 

Washington, D. C. 
Dear Sir : — In the matter of the above mentioned application 
and with reference to Office letter of the loth inst., I desire to 
amend as follows : 

45 • 



By inserting between paragraphs 2 and 3, page i of the 
specifications, the following paragraph : 

I am aware that the Apocynum has been proposed before for 
use in the treatment of the above mentioned diseases, but in ex- 
periments made with the Polytrichum Communis apart from the 
Apocynum the value of each has been verified, and it has been 
found that the absence of either of these ingredients detracts 
from the curable properties of the compound. 

I would respectfully ask for favorable action on this case in 
view of the following facts : That this moss has been shipped to 
me in large quantities, at considerable expense to have it preserved 
in proper condition. I would not go to this trouble and expense 
if any other ingredient would take the place of the Polytrichum 
Communis. It is admitted that the Apocynum is useful in dropsy 
cases as it is so given in various medical works. But the fact 
that the compound as described in the original specification will 
cure aggravated cases, which the Apocynum will not cure, and the 
fact that the Polytrichum Communis is not on record as useful 
in such cases would seem to entitle me to protection on the com- 
pound as described in the specification. 

Respectfully Yours, 

James B. Smith. 



19. For a Caveat. 

To the Commissioner of Patents : 

Be it known that \, James B. Smith, a citizen of the United 
States, residing at New York, in the County of New York, and 
State of New York, (or subject, etc.,) having invented an improve- 
ment in velocipedes, and desiring further to mature the same, file 
this my caveat therefor, and pray protection of my right until I 
shall have matured my invention. 

The following is a description of my newly invented velocipede, 
which is as full, clear and exact as I am at this time able to give, 
reference being had to the drawing hereunto annexed. 

The object of my invention is to render it unnecessary to 
turn the front wheel so much as heretofore, and at the same time 
to facilitate the turning of sharp curves. This I accomplish by 
fitting the front and rear wheels on vertical pivots, and connect- 
ing them by means of a diagonal bar, as shown in the drawing, so 
that the turning of the front wheel also turns the back wheel, 
thereby enabling it easily to turn a curve. 

In the drawing i is the front wheel, 2 the rear wheel, and 3 
the standards extending from the axle of the front wheel to the 
vertical pivot 5 in the beam 6, and 4 is the cross-bar upon the end 

.46 



5, by which the steering is done. The rear wheel 2 is also fitted 
with jaws 7 and a vertical pivot 8. 

James B, Smith. 
Witnesses : 

diaries JoJinsoriy 

William G. Anthony. 



OATHS. 

20. By an Inventor. 

ss. 



State of Neiv York, 
County of New York, 

James B. Smith, the above named petitioner, a citizen of the 
United States,^ and resident of New York, in the County of New 
York, and State of New York, being duly sworn, deposes and says 
that he verily believes himself to *be the original, first and sole^ 
inventor of the improvement in bicycles described and claimed in 
the foregoing specification ; that the same has not been patented 
to him, or to others with Jiis knowledge or consent, in any country ;^ 
that the same has not to his knowledge been in public use or on 
sale in the United States for more than two years prior to his 
application, and he does not know and does not believe that the 
same was ever known or used prior to his invention thereof. 

James B. Smith. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this fifteenth day of 
March, l8gy. 

John C. Brown, 
[Seal] Notary Public. 

21. By AN Applicant for a Re-issue (Inventor). 

State of Neiv York, 



ss 
County of New York, 

James C. Smith, the above named petitioner, being duly sworn, 
deposes and says that he does verily believe himself to be the original 
and first inventor of the improvement set forth and claimed in the 
foregoing specification and for which improvement he solicits a 
patent ; that deponent does not know and does not believe that 
said improvement was ever before known or used ; that deponent 

^If the applicant be an alien, he will state of what foreign or sovereign State 
he is a citizen or subject. 

2" Sole" or "joint." 

^Or "except in the following countries," giving the name of the countries in 
which it has been so patented, and the date and number of each patent. 

47 



is a citizen of tJic United States of America, and resides at AVw 
Yo?'k, in the County of Neiu York, and State of New York ; that 
deponent verily believes that letters patent referred to in the fore- 
going petition and specification and herewith surrendered are inop- 
erative (or invalid), for the reason that the specification thereof is 
defective (or insufficient), and that such defect (or insufficiency) 
consists particularly in ; and 

deponent further says that the errors which render such patent so 
inoperative (or invalid) arose from inadvertence (or accident, or 
mistake), and without any fraudulent or deceptive intention on 
the part of deponent ; that the following is a true specification of 
the errors which it is claimed constitute such inadvertence (or 
accident, or mistake), relied upon ; ; that 

such errors so particularly specified arose (or occurred) as fol- 
lows : 

James C. Smith. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me this tejit/i day of 2 fay, 

i8g6. 

Jolin B. James, 
[Seal] Notary Public. 



22. Supplemental Oath to Accompany a New and 
Enlarged Claim. 

State of Nczv York, | ss 
County of Nezu York, \ 

James B. Smith, whose application for letters patent for an 
improvement in Jiarvesting machinery, (serial number 543,345), was 
filed in the United States Patent Office on or about the l6th day 
of March, iSgj, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he verily 
believes Jiimself to be the original and first inventor of the improve- 
ment as described and claimed in the foregoing amendment, in 
addition to that which was embraced in the claims originally made, 
and that Jie does not know and does not believe that the same was 
ever before known or used, and that the matter sought to be 
inserted formed a part of Jiis original invention at the date of filing 
said application, and was invented hy him before//^- filed the same. 

James B. Smith. 
Sworn to and described before me this tentJi day of April, 

1897. 

Jo Jin C. Brown, 
[Seal] Notary Public. 



48 



2 3- Oath as to the Loss of Letters Patent. 
State of Nezv York, 



County of New York, 

James B. Smith, of said county, being duly sworn, doth de- 
pose and say that the letters patent No. 234,554, granted to him, 
and bearing date on the niitth day of Jamiaiy, i8gy, have been 
either lost or destroyed ; that he has made diligent search for the 
said-letters patent in all places where the same would probably be 
found, if existing, and that he has not been able to find them. 

James B. Sm,ith. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me this fifth day of June, 
i8g6. 

John C. Brown, 
[Seal] Notary Public. 

24. Revocation of Power of Attorney. 

To the Commissioner of Patents : 

The undersigned having, on or about the ^^/// day of November, 
1896, appointed JoJifi C. Bi^ozun, of New York, in the county of 
New York, and State of New York, his attorney to prosecute an 
application for letters patent, which application was filed on or 
about the 28th day of November, 1896, for an improvement in 
fire engines, hereby revokes the power of attorney then given. 

Signed at New York, in the county of Nezv York, and State 
of New York, this ^j'</ day of December, 1896. 

James B. Smith. 

25. Disclaimer during Interference. 
Interference. No. 18,879. 

James B. Smith, 



John C. Brozvn, ' ^''^°''' "^'^ Examiner of Interferences. 

Subject matter : Bicycles. 
To the Commissioner of Patents : 

Sir : — In the matter of the interference above noted, under 
the provisions of and for the purpose set forth in Rule 107. I 
disclaim : '' In an adjustable handle bar, the combination of a bar 
having a worm gear suitably connected with it, a socket fitted to 
said bar and adapted to be fitted to the front head of a bicycle, 
and a worm engaging with said worm gear, as and for the purpose 
set forth," As I am not the first inventor thereof, I here- 
with transmit an amendment to my application (serial number 

49 



601,768), for the purpose of having the above disclaimer em- 
bodied as a part of my specification. 

Signed at Xezu Yoi'k, in the county of Xezu York, and State 
of ^AVic' York, this i6th day oi June, 1896. 

JoJin C. Browji. 
Witnesses : 

CJiarles JoJinson, 

William G. Anthony. 

26. Preliminary Statemext for Domestic Inventor. 

James B. Smith, \ Interference in the United States Patent 

[ Office, 

JoJin B. Williams, ) Preliminary Statement of Ja^nes B. Smith. 

James B. Smith, of Xew York, in the County of Nezu York, 
and State of Xeiv York, being duly sworn, doth depose and say 
that he is a party to the interference declared by the Commis- 
sioner of Patents, y//;^^ 4, 1896, between yi?;;/^^ ^. Smith's appli- 
cation for letters patent, filed April 3, i 896, serial number 543,345, 
and the patent to John B. Williams^ granted Maich i, 1896, for a 
tzuine machine ; that he conceived the invention contained in claims 
I and 3 of his application declared to be involved in this interfer- 
ence, on or about the J^/ day of June, 1894 ; that on or about the 
5//^ day oi June, 1894, he made drawings of the invention (if he 
has not made a drawing he should so state) ; that on or about the 
ytJi day of June, 1894, he first explained the invention to others, 
and that he made a model showing such invention on or about the 
20th day of June, 1894 (if he has not made a model he should so 
state) ; that he embodied his invention in a full sized machine, 
which was completed about the 5/// day oi July, 18Q4, and that on 
the 6tJi day oi July, 1894, said machine was successfully operated 
at his shop in the city of New York, County of New York, and 
State of New York, and that he has since continued to use the 
same, and that he has manufactured others for use and sale. (If 
he has not embodied the invention in a full sized machine he 
should so state. And if he has so embodied it but not used it 
he should so state.) 

James B. Smith. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this \2tJ1 ^dC)' oi June, 
1896. 

CJiarles O. Jo J ins on, 

Notarv Public. 



ASSIGNMENTS. 

27. Of an Entire Interest in an Invention Before the 
Issue of Letters Patent. 

Whereas I, James B. Smith, of Nezv York, County of New 
York, State of Nczv York, have invented a certain new and useful 
improvement in Jiarvesters (giving title of the same), for which I 
am about to make application for letters patent of the United 
States ; and whereas y*?///? C. Brozvn, of Brooklyn, County of Kings, 
State of Nezv York, is desirous of acquiring an interest in said 
invention, and in the letters patent to be obtained therefor : 

Now, therefore, to all whom it may concern, be it known that 
for and in consideration of the sum of one dollar to me in hand 
paid, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, I, the said 
James B. SmitJi, have sold, assigned and transferred, and by these 
presents do sell, assign and transfer unto the said JoJin C. Brown, 
the full and exclusive right to the said invention, as fully set forth 
and described in the specification prepared and executed by me 
on the \^th day oi June, 1896, preparatory to obtaining letters 
patent of the United States therefor; and I do hereby authorize 
and request the Commissioner of Patents to issue the said letters 
patent to the said John C. Brown as the assignee of my entire 
right, title and interest in and to the same, for the sole use and 
behoof of the said John C. Brown and his legal representatives. 

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed 
my seal this 4//^ day of July, A. D. 1896. 

James B. Smith. [Seal] 

In presence of 

Charles Joh7ison, 

William G. Anthony. 

28. Of the Entire Interest in Letters Patent. 

Whereas I, James B. Smith, of Nezv York, County of Nezv 
York, State of New York, did obtain letters patent of the United 
States for an -improvement in car wheels, which letters patent are 
numbered 543,345, and bear date the 5th day oi Jnne, in the year 
1896 ; and whereas I am now the sole owner of said patent and of 
all rights under the same ; and whereas y*?//;/ C. Brozvn, of Brook- 
lyn, County of Kings, State of New York, is desirous of acquiring 
the entire interest in the same. 

Now, therefore, to all whom it may concern, be it known that, 
for and in consideration of the sum of one dollar to me in hand paid, 
the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, I, the ^?^\d. James B. 
Smith, have sold, assigned, and transferred, and by these presents 

SI 



do sell, assign, and transfer unto the S2LvdJo/in C. Braijim the whole, 
right title and interest in and to the said improvement in car 
zvheels and in and to the letters patent therefor aforesaid ; the 
same to be held and enjoyed by the said John C. Bnm'n, for his 
own use and behoof, and for the use and behoof of his legal rep- 
resentatives, to the full end of the term for which said letters 
"patent are or may be granted (thus including extension), as fully 
and entirely as the same would have been held and enjoyed bv me 
had this assignment and sale not been made. 

In Testimony Whereof I have hereunto set my hand and 
aflBxed my seal at Xtw York, in the Count)- of Xczl' York, and 
State of S'tzi' York, this 25th day oijnly, A. b. 1896. 

James B. Smith. \S^2^^ 

Ir^ presence of 

Charlts Johnson^ 

William G. Antkonv. 



29. Of an Undivided Int: 



T ^__^^^ -D . -^^-^ 



WTiereas \, James B. Smith, of Brooklyn, Count}- f -V ; v. 
State of_\iit' York, did obtain letters patent of the United Slices 
for an improvement in hay rakes, which letters patent are num- 
bered 543,216, and bear date the 3d day of August, in the year 
1895, and whereas y<7^« C. Bro^m, of Brooklyn, Countv' of Kiri^Sy 
State of -VtZi' York, is desirous of acquiring an in:ere5: ::: :he 
same : 

Now, therefore, to all whom it may concern, be it known 
that, for and in consideration of the sum of one doUar to me in hand 
paid, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, I, the said 
James B. Smith, have sold, assigned, and transferred, and by 
these presents do sell, assign and transfer unto the ssiidjohn C. 
Bnyiim the undivided one-half part of the whole right, title and 
interest in and to the said invention and in and to the letters 
patent therefor aforesaid ; the said undivided one-half part to be 
held and enjoyed by the said_7i?^/r C. Broum, for his own use and 
behoof, and for the use and behoof of his legal representatives, to 
the full end of the term for which said letters patent are or may 
be granted (thus including extension), as fully and entirely as the 
same would have been held and enjoyed by me bad this assign- 
ment and sale not been made. 

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and 
affixed my seal at Brooklyn, in the County of Kings, and State of 
JVVw York, this 7th day oijune, A. D. 1896. 

James B Smith. _5cal] 

In presence of 

Charles Johnson^ 

JVilliam]G. Anthony. 



30. Territorial Interest After Grant of Patent. 

Whereas I, James B. Smith, of Brooklyn, County of Kings, 
State of Ah-w York, did obtain letters patent of the United States 
for an improvement in grain-bi^iders, which letters patent are 
numbered 345,453, and bear date the StJi day oijune, in the year 
1895 ; and whereas I am now the sole owner of said patent and 
of all rights under the same in the below recited territory ; and 
whereas, John C. Brown of Brooklyn, County of Kings, State of 
New York, is desirous of acquiring an interest in the same : 

Now, therefore, to all whom it may concern, be it known that 
for and in consideration of the sum of 07ie dollar to me in hand 
paid, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,, I, the said 
James B- Smith, have sold, assigned and transferred, and by these 
presents do sell, assign and transfer unto the said John C. Broiun, 
all the right, title and interest in and to the said invention, as 
secured to me by said letters patent, for, to, and in the State of 
New Jersey, and for, to, or in no other place or places ; the same 
to be held or enjoyed by the said John C. Biown, within and 
throughout the above specified territory, but not elsewhere, for 
his own use and behoof, and for the use and behoof of his legal 
representatives, for the full end of the term for which said letters 
patent are or may be granted, as fully and entirely as the same 
would have been held and enjoyed by me had this assignment and 
sale not been made. 

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and 
affixed my seal at Brooklyn, in the County of Kings, and State of 
New York, this 3<3^ day oijidy, 1896. 
Witnesses : James B. Smith. [Seal] 

Charles Johnson, 
William G. AntJwny. 

31. License, Shop-Right. 

In consideration of the sum of 07ie dollar, to be paid by the 
firm of Smith, Brozvn & Co., of Brooklyn, in the County of Kings, 
State of New York, I do hereby license and empower the said 
Smith, Brozvn & Co. to manufacture in said Brooklyn (or other 
place agreed upon) the improvement in cotton-seed planters, for 
which letters patent of the United States No. 425,321, were 
granted to me November 13, 1895, and to sell the machines so 
manufactured throughout the United States to the full end of the 
term for which said letters patent are granted. 

Signed at Brooklyn, in the County of Kings, and State of 
New York, this 2 2;^^/day of April, 1896. 
Witnesses : James B. Smith. [Seal] 

Chaises Johnson, 

William, G. Anthony. 

53 



32. License. Not Exclusive. With Royalty. 

This agreement, made this I2th day of Septcinbci , 1896, be- 
tween James B. Smith, of Brooklyn, in the County of Kings, and 
State of Xcw York, party of the first part, and CJiarlcs Johnson, 
of Clifton, in the County of RicJimond, and State oi Ne%o York, 
party of the second part, witnesseth, that whereas letters patent 
of the United States No. 321,123, for an improvement m Jiorsc 
rakes, were granted to the party of the first part dated Octobei 4, 
1895 ; and whereas the party of the second part is desirous of 
manufacturing Jiorse lakes containing said patented improvement : 
Now, therefore, the parties have agreed as follows • 

I. The party of the first part hereby licenses and empowers 
the party of th-e second part to manufacture, subject to the con- 
ditions hereinafter named, at their factory in Clinton, and in no 
other place or places, to the end of the term for which said letters 
patent were granted, Jiorse rakes containing the patented improve- 
ments, and to sell the same within the United States. 

I I. The party of the second part agrees to make full and true 
returns to the party of the first part, under oath, upon the first 
days of January and July in each year, of all horse rakes contain- 
ing the patented improvements manufactured by them. 

III. The party of the second part agrees to pay to the 
party, of the first part five dollars as a license-fee upon every 
horse rake manufactured by said party of the second part contain- 
ing the patented improvements ; provided, that if the said fee be 
paid upon the days provided herein for semi-annual returns, or 
within ten days thereafter, a discount of fifty per cent, shall be 
made from said fee for prompt payment. 

IV. Upon a failure of the party of the second part to make 
returns or to make payments of license-fees, as herein provided, 
for thirty days after the days herein named, the party of the first 
part may terminate this license by serving a written notice upon 
the party of the second ; but the party of the second part shall 
not thereb}^ be discharged from any liability to the party of the 
first part for any license fees due at the time of the service of 
said notice. 

In witness whereof the parties above named have hereunto 
set their hands the day and year first above written at Brooklyn, 
in the County of Kings, and State of Xeiv York. 

James B. Smith. 
Charles JoJinson. 



54 



'^W% .. 







r/G J. 






F/Q. / 



^JL--- 




^0 



r/G 4. 




r/az. 



ntTNEsses 



7 — r ,^. - 



3^ 



^ 



33. Complete Proceedings, Including Actions by the 
Office and Amendments by the Applicant. 

To all whom it may concern : 

Be it known that I, James 13. Smith, a citizen of the United 
States, and resident of Brooklyn, in the County of Kings and 
State of New York, have invented certain new and useful improve- 
ments in Pipe Couplings, of which the following is a full and com- 
plete specification. 

This invention relates particularly to pipe couplings which 
are attached to the air brake pipes of railroad trains ; and has 
for its object to do away with the stop-cock or angle-cock which 
controls the flow of compressed air through these air brake pipes, 
by the substitution of a valve in the coupling shells, to take the 
place of, and perform the functions of, this angle-cock. Further 
objects of this invention will appear later on. 

In the drawings, Figure i is a side elevation showing two 
couplings in their locked position, one of such couplings being 
shown in section ; Figure 2 is a plan view of the same ; Figure 3 
is a detail of the cam slot, and Figure 4 is a view of the chair 
with vertical slot. 

In the construction of my improved coupling, I use a shell 2, 
of the type in general use, provided with a hose end i, to which 
the flexible hose may be secured in any suitable manner. I pro- 
vide the coupler shells wdth the usual gaskets 3, formed of rubber, 
through the aperture of which the compressed air passes. The 
coupler shell is also provided with the usual projecting lip 4, 
adapted to become engaged with the projecting arm 5, which ex- 
tends outward from the body of the engaging shell. This is the 
ordinary and usual construction, and is so arranged that two 
coupler shells can be engaged with each other by a rotary motion 
which brings the bead 7 on the lip 4 into the groove on the arm 5 
of the other couplings, which groove is provided for the reception 
of the bead. 

To provide each coupling with a valve which shall control 
the opening through the gaskets, I provide a nut 8, which has a 
threaded portion 9 whereby the nut is firmly fitted to the shell. 
This nut contacts and holds in place the chair 10, which rests up- 
on the valve seat 1 1. To close the opening 12, in this valve seat, 
I provide a valve 13, which has a reciprocating motion directly 
towards and away from the seat 11, for the purpose of opening 
and closing the aperture. This valve has a cylindrical stem 14, 
guided in the neck of the chair 10 ; this neck is also provided with 
a slot 15, in which rides the pin 16 which is also attached to the 
valve stem 14. Fitted within the nut 8 is the cylindrical cam 17, 
whose neck 18 has a bearing in the nut, and to a squared projec- 

S1 



tion 19 of this neck, is fitted the lever 20. The cam 17 has a slot 
21, which carries the pin 16, and by means of which the pin 16, 
and with it the valve 13, is moved towards and away from the seat 
II. To operate the lever 20, I provide it with two projecting 
lugs 6 which are adapted to straddle the arm 5 of the engaging 
coupling. As the couplings are rotated to their engaged position, 
this lever is operated to rotate the cam and thus raise the valve 
from its seat, leaving a free opening through the gaskets. As 
the couplings are rotated to their disengaged position the valve 
is moved back to its seat, thus closing the opening. 

Thus it will be seen that the operation of bringing the coup- 
lings into engagement opens the valve while that of uncoupling 
the shells closes the valve. Those familiar with the art will re- 
member that in the ordinary and usual arrangement, when the 
couplings are engaged the angle-cock has to be turned independ- 
ently, to allow the air a free passage through the train pipe, and 
when the shells are uncoupled the angle-cock has to be closed. 
Another advantage of this invention is that by bringing the valve 
close to the mouth of the coupling, the latter does not so readily 
become a lodging place for dirt and cinders, which are thence 
blown into the triple valve. 

The features of this invention which I believe to be novel, 
consist in the rotary cam and in the chair by which it is sup- 
ported. By this construction the valve moves to and from its 
seat with a direct motion, in distinction from a previous form of 
construction in which the valve is moved from its seat by a twist- 
ing motion which has a bad effect upon the valve^ causing it 
to quickly wear out, and in which form of construction, it is some- 
times hard to open the valve. 

Having described my invention I claim : 

Rejected. i. In pipe couplings, the combination of two 

engaging coupler shells, a reciprocating valve within 
each shell, a rotary cam within each shell adapted to 
operate said valve as said cam is rotated, a lever at- 
tached to each cam and adapted to be operated by 
the opposite coupler shell as the shells are engaged 
and disengaged respectively, as and for the purpose 
set forth. 

Rejected. 2. In pipe couplings, the combination of a 

shell, a reciprocating valve within the shell, a rotary 
cam connected with such valve, and a lever attached 
to said cam and adapted to rotate said cam, as and 
for the purpose set forth. 

Rejected. 3. In pipe couplings, the combination of a 

shell provided with a valve seat, a reciprocating valve 
mounted upon a stem and connected with a cam, 

58 



said cam having an operating lever attached to it, as 
and for the purpose set forth. 
Rejected. 4. In pipe couplings, the combination of a 

shell, a valve seat within said shell, a rotary cam, a 
reciprocating valve provided with a stem, a cross 
piece upon such stem and contacting said cam, a 
neck to said cam and an operating lever attached to 
said neck, as and for the purpose set forth. 
Allowed. 5. In pipe couplings, the combination of two 

engaging coupler shells, a rotary cam within each 
shell, a reciprocating valve provided with a stem 
portion, a cross piece upon said stem and working in 
a slot in said cam, a valve seat within each shell, a 
chair to hold such seat in place and provided with a 
slotted neck in which said cross piece works, and 
which guides said valve stem, a lever attached to said 
cam and engaging the opposite coupler shell, as and 
for the purpose set forth. 

James B. Smith. 
Witnesses, 

Charles Johnson, 

William G. Anthony. 



'United States Patent Office. 

Washington, D. C, Feb. 9, 1896. 
James B. Smith, Subject : Pipe Couplings. 

Care John C. Brown, Filed Jan. 2, 1896. 

- Brooklyn, N. Y. Serial No. 534,743. 

Please find below a communication from the Examiner in 
charge of your application, above noted. 

John S. Seymour, 

Commissioner of Patents. 
This case has been examined. 

Claims i, 2, 3 and 4 are rejected on West, No. 214,336, Apr. 
15, 1879, Water Distribution, Pipe Couplings, Valved, or on the 
British patent to West, No. 5201, Dec. [8, 1878, Pipe Couplings, 
in view of Farrell, No. 490,227, Jan. 17, 1893, Water Distribution, 
Cocks and Faucets, Reciprocating Valves, There would be no 
invention in substituting the valve shown in Farrell for that shown 
in either of the other patents cited. 

Claim 5 may be allowed. 



59 



Explanation of the Rejected Claims. 

The two patents to West show a shell similar to that of the 
applicant, having a reciprocating valve operated by a cam. While 
the cam is stationary, the valve and its stem are turned by a con- 
nection with a lever similar to the applicant's. The patent to 
Farrell shows a reciprocating valve operated by a rotary cylinder 
which makes a complete turn to raise the valve from its seat, and 
the slot by which this is accomplished has a regular pitch similar 
to a screw thread. Evidently in view of these prior patents the 
only patentable features of this application are the details of con- 
struction, and the four claims rejected are justly so. The claim 
allowed is a very narrow one and could be easily avoided by chang- 
ing some of the details. To get the best protection possible under 
the circumstances it becomes necessary to get as many concise 
and distinct claims on the details as possible. Therefore the fol- 
lowing amendment is made. 



James B. Smith, 

Pipe Couplings. 

Filed Jan. 2, 1896. 

Serial No. 534743- 

Brooklyn, N. Y., Feb. 15, 1897. 
Commissioner of Patents, 

Washington, D. C. 

Dear Sir : — In the matter of the above mentioned application 
and with reference to the Office letter of the 9th inst., I desire to 
amend as follows : 

Page 2, of the specification, immediately preceding the words 
"Having described my invention, I claim," insert the following 
paragraph : As the reciprocating valve, when closed, is held to 
its seat by the pressure of the confined air, which is about 60 
pounds to the square inch, it requires the application of consider- 
able strength to lift it. 

Therefore the slot 21 of the cam is constructed of such a form 
that the couplings may be rotated towards their engaged position 
sufficiently for the bead 7 to have entered the groove in the arm 5 
and for the couplings to become partially engaged before the rise 
in the cam slot begins to raise the pin 16 and the valve from its 
seat. This rise is made very gradual at first and then more steep 
because the valve moves hardest at the start, and after once started 
it moves more easily. 

As this subject matter was not described in the original specifi- 



60 



tion, and as I desire to make suitable claims thereon, I desire that 
the appended oath, as required in such cases, may be attached. 

I desire to cancel claims i, 2, 3 and 4, and substitute the 
following claims : 

Allowed. I. In a pipe coupling, the combination of a 

shell, a reciprocating valve within such shell, a valve 
seat, and a chair adapted to hold such seat in place, 
and to directly prevent the rotation of such valve 
upon its seat, and a lever operated cam adapted to 
control such valve, as and for the purpose set forth. 
Rejected. 2. In a pipe coupling, the combination of a 

cam provided with a bearing in such coupling, a re- 
ciprocating valve operated by such cam, a valve seat 
and a means of directly preventing the rotation of 
said valve upon its seat, and a lever connected with 
such cam, as and for the purpose set forth. 
Allowed. 3. In a pipe coupling, the combination of a 

shell, a reciprocating valve, a pin directly connected 
with such valve, a cam connected with such pin, and 
a lever attached to said cam, as and for the purpose 
set forth. 
Allowed. 4. In pipe couplings, the combination of two 

engaging coupling shells, a reciprocating valve with- 
in such shell, a valve seat and a chair to hold such 
seat in place, said chair adapted to guide said valve 
and to prevent its rotation during its reciprocating 
motion, a cam connected with such valve, and a lever 
connected with said cam and adapted to be operated 
by the opposite shell, as and for the purpose set 
forth. 
Allowed. 5. In a pipe coupling, the combination of a 

shell, a reciprocating valve, a lever operated cam 
connected with said valve and provided with a flat 
portion on its operating surface whereby said cam 
may be partially rotated in its opening movement 
without operating such valve, as and for the purpose 
set forth. 
In order to make more plain the advantages of this construc- 
tion, and the patentabihty of the claims submitted in the amend- 
ment I wish to ask the examiners' attention to the following : 

The claims rejected in Office letter of Feb. 9th, 1896, have 
been cancelled, not because the applicant admits that they fully 
cover the structures cited against them, but in order to embody 
said claims in a form which will more plainly present the patentable 
features of this invention. It is noted that the cases cited repre- 
sent two different arts. The Farrell valve is adapted to water 

61 



distribution, and not to air, while the West valves are in the same 
art as the applicant's structure. It would therefore seem that the 
applicant ought to be allowed broader claims than if the Farrell 
valve was in the same art, since the details of construction in the 
two arts can not from the nature of the case be the same, and 
what will be operative in one art will not be an operative construc- 
tion in the other. 

The conditions presented to the applicant and difficulties to 
be overcome were these: Given a coupling shell of a size and 
form limited, in order to be interchangeable with those now in 
use, an opening in the shell of a certain size, for the same reason, 
to provide a valve which will control such opening and which will 
operate readily under a pressure of 60 pounds, and which will be 
operated by the action of engaging and disengaging the shells. A 
reciprocating valve is provided. This is shown in the West patents 
cited. In order that the couplings may be partially engaged before 
the valve is moved from its seat the cam must have flat place so 
that it may be turned a portion of its movement before the rise in 
the cam meets the pin and begins to raise the valve. By this con- 
struction the valve has no movement except the reciprocating 
motion directly to and from the seat. The West valve moves up 
with a twisting motion like that of a screw, and on moving to and 
from its seat must grind more or less upon it, and moreover may 
become wedged upon it. Hence may be seen the advantages of 
the applicant's construction over all previous constructions, which 
would seem to entitle him to claims sufficiently broad to protect 
his invention, and it would seem that the claims here presented 
ought to be allowed. 

Respectfully yours, 

John C. Brown, 

Attorney for Applicant. 

Oath. 

State of New York, 
County of Kings. 

James B. Smith, whose application for letters patent for an 
improvement in pipe couplings (serial number 534,743), was filed 
in the United States Patent Office on the 2nd day of January, 
1896, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he verily believes 
himself to be the original and first inventor of the improvement as 
described and claimed in the foregoing amendment, in addition to 
that which was embraced in the claims originally made, and he 
does not know and does not believe that the same was ever before 
known or used, and that the matter sought to be inserted formed 

O2 



ss. 



a part of his original invention at the date of filing such applica- 
tion, and was invented by him before he filed the same. 

James B. Smith. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 15th day of February, 
1896. 

Anthony Jones, 
[Seal] Notary Public. 

United States Patent Office. 

Washington, D. C, March 18, 1896. 

James B. Smith, Subject : Pipe Couplings. 

Care John C. Brown, Filed Jan. 2, 1896. 

Brooklyn, N. Y. Serial No. 534,743. 

Please find below a communication from the examiner in 
charge of your application. 

This case has been examined as amended. 
Claim 2 is rejected on the references cited, and as being 
functional. The remaining claims are allowable. 

Explanation. 

Reference to the definition of Functional claims on page 13, 
will show that this claim falls under the class No. 3, in that the 
"means of directly preventing the rotation of said valve upon its 
seat" involves a novel element of the construction, and hence is 
not allowable. 

James B. Smith, 
Pipe CoupHngs. 
Filed Jan. 2, 1896. 
Serial No. 534743- 

Brooklyn, N. Y., March 25, 1896. 
Commissioner of Patents : 

Washington, D. C. 
Dear Sir : — In the matter of the above mentioned application, 
and with reference to Office letter of the i8th inst., I desire to 
amend as follows : 

By cancelling claim 2. 

In view of this action I would respectfully ask for an early 
allowance of this case. 

John C. Brown, 

Attorney for Applicant. 

Note : The allowance was then granted. 

63 



LiBHARY OF CONnRFCc 

iiiiiiiiiiii 

028 030 985 




